|
|
Re: What is this list FOR?Michael Bauser (MBAUSER@KENTVM.KENT.EDU)Sun, 1 May 1994 17:48:56 EDT
>Well, I have been posting to this list on and off for more than two >years I think. I have been reading a lot of speculative journalism about >the way that electronic communication is transforming human relations. >But what I see is that we are busy assimilating this new form of >communication into existing social relationships and institutionalized >forms. Contrary to what the techno-utopians say, we want to know WHO WE >ARE TALKING TO. >Giiving our bio sketches to the list is a way of making it seem like we >are all sitting around the electronic campfire. But, you know, it is not >like that at all. I posted a message here a couple of weeks ago about As I mentioned over in the "re: anonymity" thread, I started to reply to Rich's post, but accidentally deleted it and never got back to it. Now that the subject seems to be evolving, I've decided to come back to it. First off, I do think that the Anthro-L populace's need to know who they're talking to (to the extent of trading biographies) is unusual among networked groups. Most such groups are content to work from cues given _in posts_, i.e. "the identity constructed as you go" that I discuss in my earlier post. Anybody wanting details of that theory should go read that post. Now what I'm wondering about here is *why* is Anthro-L different from UseNet, FidoNet, and the more recreational listservs. The only place (so far) where I've seen "tell me about yourself" said to such effect has been in local BBS systems (you know, PCs hooked up to modems and hidden in the back of someone's house), specifically in the local message bases. The only parallel I can see between our beloved Anthro-L and those local BBS systems in a slightly stronger shared identity among participants of each listserv/message base. That is, more overlap in each individual's self-concept. To state this simply: If anybody on Anthro-L was asked for a short biography (whether or not it's asked for by Anthro-L or a stranger on the street), I figure 90% of would include some variation on "I'm an anthropologist", "I'm an anthropology student", or "I majored in anthropology". Having such a significant part of our biography overlap _instantly_ creates a stronger feeling of community than over on the recreational areas of UseNet (say rec.games.frp.dnd, dedicated to the game Advanced Dungeons & Dragons), where a hobby/interest might not be significant portion of the individual's self-concept. Going back to those local BBS systems, the shared trait would seem to be simply that everyone in the local message base is a local. Geographic proximity seems to carry a fair amount of shared experience with it (obviously), which leads to an almost predictable set of reoccuring threads in local message bases. "What's wrong with the Cleveland Browns" and "What's happening at Kent State now?" seem to pop up a lot on BBS systems around Kent, Ohio. I hope I've said enough for everyone to pick apart. On to some smaller points in Rich's post. >Institutional economists have a term for the time and effort that it >takes to get and transmit information - it is a "transaction cost." High >transaction costs, argues Douglass North (1993 Nobel Prize winner), are >one of the basic reasons for the kinds of social groups we have. High >transaction costs make it reasonable, often, to depend on others instead >of doing things ourselves (I do great violence by oversimplifying). But >here we have a form of communication with VERY low costs. I am willing >to sit down and write email when I would be loathe to write a letter or That sounds nice, but it leads me to believe you've never seen the proverbial "please help me with my homework" posts or the Survey Out Of The Blue posts that drive people on UseNet nuts. A lot of undergrads seem to try using UseNet (although I've seen it in FidoNet's College echo a lot, too) as an easy way out for research. (It gets rather annoying after a while.) Almost as if the lower transactional cost was inspiring the slackers to try to depend on other's expertise _more_. From the academic perspective, not good. Not good at all. >even make a phone call! Who KNOWS what kinds of social effects this will >have. I see some levelling (people with different status positions in >the discipline exchanging information), but also persistence of a lot >of divisions and hierarchy. Commoditization creeping in (did you hear >about the guy who posted a zillion advertisements over the net last >week? A lawyer soliciting business!). And so many mixed expectations and Yeah, I saw that. SEVENTEEN TIMES (I'm subscribed to 18 UseNet groups. Oddly enough, the only one he missed was alt.grad.skool.sux) I have some pet theories as to why UseNet at large is so upset by Canter & Siegal, but this post it getting long enough.) Maybe we can take it to a different thread. >I am still waiting for some form of emergent function to appear here >though. I have been hoping that the kinds of collaboration that appear >from time to time would build. Instead conversations come and go, and >when people help each other it is open, generalized reciprocity that >does not lead to any intensified social ties. I sense that there is some I think these groups tend to find their own purpose, often one far from the original intent of a group's creator. What comes to mind is the debate (on UseNet's alt.config and alt.dads-rights) about the groups alt.dads-rights, which was intended to discuss the father's perspective in parental custody decisions. Somehow, it became a debating ground for the "male choice" issue in abortion, which apparently upset the creators of the group. They then changed the group to a moderated group, and refuse to allow discussions of abortion. I should note that moderating a UseNet group (especially an alt group) after the fact of creation is always a contentious issue (many seeing it as the restriction of a previously unrestricted forum), and suggests that trying to find or create a purpose for a group that's already got (or not got) one isn't going to work. As much as the generalist in me winces for writing it, if you want purpose, you'll probably have to create a specialized group for it. >I guess the upshot of all this is that I am wavering about where this >list is going, and my own committment of time to it (though clearly not >to many other internet resources). I would like to hear other people on >the list on this - are others beginning to feel this way? Are there >possible uses for this forum beyond sending each other references and >engaging each other in conversation, making announcements from time to >time? Inquiring minds want to know! Personally, I rather appreciate the nondirection of Anthro-L. Otherwise I'd have to go to the Tavern with some other grad students for this kind of freeflow discussion, and even that's difficult to keep going after the fourth beer. --
|